In a significant ruling touching on land acquisition disputes and procedural delays, the Meghalaya High Court at Shillong has dismissed a revision petition filed by Umsaw Khwan Village Dorbar. The petition challenged a lower court’s order condoning a 707-day delay by the State government in filing an appeal related to a ₹8 crore land compensation dispute. Justice W. Diengdoh, presiding over the case, upheld the lower court’s decision, holding that “the delay was not deliberate and arose from bona fide circumstances.”
Background
The case traces back to 2011 when the State of Meghalaya acquired land measuring over 9.24 lakh square meters at Mawpalai village under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Of the total ₹10 crore compensation, ₹8 crore was paid to Umsaw Khwan Village through its headman and a power of attorney holder. However, the village body later sought the remaining ₹2 crore, which led to a prolonged legal tussle.
Following a series of writ petitions and a money suit, the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Ri Bhoi District, rejected the State’s suit in 2016, citing lack of cause of action. The government then filed an appeal before the District Judge but only after a massive delay of 707 days. The District Judge, through an order dated 15 June 2023, condoned the delay, prompting the village body to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
During arguments, senior advocate V.G.K. Kynta, representing the village, asserted that the District Judge had no authority to condone such a long delay since the 1937 Rules of Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills do not allow it. He emphasized that “the State is not entitled to special treatment in procedural matters.”
The State, represented by Dr. N. Mozika, countered that the Limitation Act, 1963, applies across Meghalaya, including tribal areas, and allows for condonation when justified. He argued that the delay arose because “the government had initially pursued a wrong legal remedy based on legal advice” and later rectified it in good faith.
Justice Diengdoh agreed with the State’s reasoning. The bench observed, “The intention of the applicant was bona fide. There was no deliberate inaction, and they have not slept over their right.” He clarified that while the 1937 Rules prescribe a 30-day limitation period, Rule 41 read with the Limitation Act allows for flexibility when the parties involved are not tribal entities.
Further, the court noted that the State, being an impersonal machinery, often functions through multiple administrative layers. Hence, “minor delays caused by procedural advice and approvals” could not automatically be seen as negligence.
Decision
Finding no arbitrariness or legal error in the lower court’s approach, the High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Umsaw Khwan Village Dorbar. “The order of the District Judge cannot be termed perverse or capricious,” the judge stated, affirming the condonation of delay.
With this, the government’s appeal in the ₹8-crore compensation dispute will now proceed before the Ri Bhoi District Court. The High Court’s order closes, for now, a long chapter in a case that has zigzagged through multiple forums over more than a decade.
Case: Umsaw Khwan Village Dorbar vs State of Meghalaya & Anr.
Court: High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh
Case Number: CRP No. 12 of 2023
Parties:
- Petitioner: Umsaw Khwan Village Dorbar (represented by Headman Handerland Nongkseh) and Shri Stanlywiss Rymbai
- Respondent: State of Meghalaya, Forest & Environment Department
Date of Judgment: 24 October 2025